United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
F. KENNEY, J.
se Plaintiff Ivonne Arcan Blanco has filed a Complaint
against Eric Jordan and attorney James Kreindler. Blanco has
also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
Because it appears that Blanco is unable to afford to pay the
filing fee, the Court will grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis. For the following reasons, the Complaint
will be dismissed without prejudice, and Blanco will be
granted leave to file an amended complaint to attempt to cure
the defects noted by the Court.
used the Court's preprinted form complaint and, in the
sections requesting the basis for this Court's
jurisdiction, the operative facts, and relief requested,
Blanco quotes directly from a September 13, 2019 article
published in The Wall Street Journal. The article, together with
the paper's entire Section A for that date, is attached
to the Complaint. (ECF No. 2 at 5, 6, 7; undesignated
exhibit, ECF No. 2 at 21, 22.) Blanco also attaches a
handwritten narrative. (ECF No. 2 at 9-17.) The topics
addressed in the narrative include the entry of a judgment,
presumably in favor of Blanco, in a New York court
(id. at 10); the invasion of Blanco's privacy by
unnamed individuals by use of computers, internet, radio and
television (id. at 11); a break-in at Blanco's
former New York apartment (id.), an incident in
which Blanco was drugged and photographed, with the photos
appearing in the newspaper the next day (id. at 12);
an unsuccessful lawsuit (id. at 13); an incident in
which Blanco ingested gasoline and was hospitalized, required
to undergo a stomach pumping, and referred to a psychiatric
hospital (id. at 13-14); the publication of a
newspaper article claiming that Blanco's grandson was
Jesus Christ, resulting in unwanted publicity (id.
at 14), and the publication of another article claiming that
Blanco was the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary (id.
at 15); an allegation that Blanco is being followed
(id. at 16); and a claim that something was placed
in or removed from Blanco's body that may result in
cancer of the kidney (id. at 17). Blanco requests
"someone listen en get justice as soon as possible
because I'm so tired for that situation because is
impossible to slepy relax." (Id. at 17 (errors
in original)). None of the incidents or allegations described
in the Complaint appear linked to the Defendants. Blanco does
not state where the Defendants are domiciled and there is no
indication that any event took place in this District.
(See ECF No. 2)
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Court will grant Blanco leave to proceed in forma
pauperis because it appears that Blanco is incapable of
paying the fees to commence this civil action. Accordingly,
28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) applies, which requires
the Court to dismiss the complaint if it fails to state a
claim. Whether a complaint fails to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is governed by the same standard
applicable to motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), see Tourscher v. McCullough, 184
F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999), which requires the Court to
determine whether the complaint contains "sufficient
factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). As
Blanco is proceeding pro se, the Court must construe
his allegations liberally. Higgs v. Att'y Gen.,
655 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2011).
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires a complaint to contain
"a short and plain statement of the claim showing that
the pleader is entitled to relief" A district court may
sua sponte dismiss a complaint that does not comply
with Rule 8 if "the complaint is so confused, ambiguous,
vague, or otherwise unintelligible that its true substance,
if any, is well disguised." Simmons v. Abruzzo,
49 F.3d 83, 86 (2d Cir. 1995) (quotations omitted). This
Court has noted that Rule 8 "requires that pleadings
provide enough information to put a defendant on sufficient
notice to prepare their defense and also ensure that the
Court is sufficiently informed to determine the issue."
Fabian v. St. Mary's Med. Ctr., No. Civ. A.
16-4741, 2017 WL 3494219, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 11, 2017)
Blanco's Complaint is subject to dismissal if it fails to
set forth a proper basis for this Court's exercise of
subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);
Fed. R Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any
time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action."); Group Against Smog and
Pollution, Inc. v. Shenango, Inc., 810 F.3d 116, 122 n.6
(3d Cir. 2016) (explaining that "an objection to subject
matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time [and] a court
may raise jurisdictional issues sua sponte").
As a plaintiff commencing an action in federal court, Blanco
bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
See Lincoln Ben. Life Co. v. AEI Life, LLC, 800 F.3d
99, 105 (3d Cir. 2015) ("The burden of establishing
federal jurisdiction rests with the party asserting its
existence." (citing DaimlerChrysler Corp. v.
Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006)).
Complaint is virtually incomprehensible. The Complaint
describes numerous incidents from Blanco's life,
including specific references to litigation in other courts,
but does not explain what bearing these prior incidents have
on the present case. The gravamen of the Complaint is
indecipherable. Moreover, the Complaint does not appear to
include any facts related to named Defendants Jordan or
the basis for the Court's jurisdiction is unclear. Blanco
has not indicated how this Court has jurisdiction and it is
unclear from the facts asserted in the Complaint whether a
factual basis exists that would permit this Court to exercise
federal question jurisdiction over this case. Further, it is
not possible to assess the existence of diversity
jurisdiction, because Blanco does not provide addresses for
the named Defendants. Finally, in the absence of facts
indicating where the Defendants are located and where the
events giving rise to the claim occurred, this Court cannot
determine whether venue lies in this district. See
28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
reviewed the Complaint, the Court finds that it fails to
state a cognizable claim. Additionally, it is unclear whether
any basis exists to permit the Court to exercise subject
matter jurisdiction over Blanco's claim and, if
jurisdiction does exist, whether venue lies in this District.
Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the complaint pursuant to
Rule 8 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court
will, however, grant Blanco leave ...